Search form

Cox Removing Services?

Last week we lost MSNBC and were told we needed a new subscription. When we went to the office in Loreto Plaza, we were told that they have changed their packages and now the ever-popular news station was in a different category and would cost guys another $30 per month. We are already paying Cox for various hook-ups over $100 a month.

Comments Penalty Box

1 Comments deleted due to down vote

No Comments deleted by Administrator

39 Comments

Thank you: ELDERSWIMMER, TRIPLEA, EASTBEACH, FROOSHER, and especially SUEPOW1076 for providing a link to MSNBC. Since last Wed. (Sep 8) I was dropped from receiving channel 42 which was one of my basic channel subscription listing. I called Cox by phone and used LiveChat on their web site to find out what the problem was up until Friday. They all said it was on MSNBC's side - some sort of power failure. Typical excuse from a Republican centric corporation and a Santa Barbara County stronghold. I kept searching Google for complaints regarding the loss of MSNBC in Southern California but it wasn't until today (Sep 13) that I came across Edhat's Forum comments.
I've been Cox basic subscriber since 1985. Since then I've have endured a shrinking channel base, more info commercials, increased Spanish stations, dropped signals, dropped audio, blue screens, frozen screens, pixelation, signal jitter and it all comes with the blessings of Cox Communication who would rather substitute meaningful content with more brainless style programming.

We have one t.v. that has a box on it so that t.v. still gets MSNBC, but my little t.v. where I like to watch only has one of those little free (but soon not free) unscramblers and only got the basic cox channels, and now, NO MSNBC. The weird thing is that before this change I could not get Fox News and now I can on this extra t.v. and, of course, two more Spanish stations I can't use. I imagine CNN will soon be taken away from the most basic package as well.
The next change that Cox will be implementing, and is, i.m.o. a direct slap to those who cut out the cox t.v. packages to stream t.v. via internet, is limits and surcharges on your internet usages. Reading the fine print on a Cox bill every month is an education in corporate manipulation and greed!
ANYBODY HAVING BETTER LUCK WITH FRONTIER THESE DAYS?

@TRIPLEA, I think you hit it on the nose regarding eventual limits/surcharges. Very few consumers realize what's going on in Washington regarding FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's efforts under the Trump administration to tear down internet regulations most American's don't even know about. If Pai and his Republican commissioners have their way, it won't matter if people cut their ties with Cox Cable for TV content and switch to Sling, Sony Vue, Hulu, Netflix, or any of the alternatives. That's because Pai and the FCC are tearing down net neutrality structures (i.e. concept that the internet is a utility) so that ISP's like Cox and Comcast will be able to charge you more when you use Sling, Hulu, etc. So consumers lose in the end because the FCC will allow the ISP's to arbitrage away the savings we got by getting TV content from someone other than Cox. And the FCC is dropping lifeline services to create "internet ghettos" which just makes the gap between the have's/have not's even wider. Other countries do better by providing/owning the internet infrastructure, then letting ISP's compete openly on that infrastructure. Ask someone from the UK how much they spend on ISP and cell service. Much less than Americans do.

If you can tolerate adds, you can stream MSNBC (and other news) for free here http://www.livenewson.com/american/msnbc.html and elsewhere on the web. We just cut the cable and no longer have satellite either. The only loss (for my husband) is sports. But you have to pay so much to get any decent amount of sports (particularly basketball) that it's no longer worth it. So now we have news (without the DVR so there are adds--but it's free), Netflix, Amazon (the Firestick has a ton of stuff) and we signed up for HBO go. We have more TV than we can ever watch for $25 a month.

Whereas you, Resident, are a completely objective person, and never watch anything that caters to your own biases, prejudices, lack of knowledge, lack of intelligence, lack of intellectual honesty, and other characteristics of right wingers.

Yes, I called Cox last night about MSNBC being dropped from my low tier connection. I was told that it was moved to a higher subscription and basically it would cost me twice as much to get that one channel back! Very angry about that especially being a customer for 29 years! I guess it really is time to move to better options.

I, too, called and have been a long time customer and I can't afford to pay for the $80/month Contour service whatever that is that has the MSNBC channel, in addition to internet. I shall look into options, perhaps drop the tv and raise the internet speed.

I mainly get news from NPR and PBS. Both are available free over the air. You can also watch PBS shows via the internet. Santa Barbara needs internet competition, maybe Verizon FiOS. Hopefully between a new mayor and a few new city council they'll open the access to others besides Cox.

The new mayor is the same as the old councilmember who was part of the council that recently voted to extend the Cox franchise agreement. Jack Ucciferri ran in the 6th district against Gregg Hart ran on the platform of getting fiber optic connections, but he lost.

Yes. Over the years one station at a time has been removed from the Starter TV line up. This is the very inexpensive line up the City Council required them to have in place so most people can at least afford something. They often replace the "good" channel with one or two "junk" channels in the 100's. This way they can look like they still offer the same number of channels in the Starter TV line up. Do not just write a note on Edhat. Send an email to each and everyone of the current and future City Council members.

I have "expanded basic". I had no idea it was this bad. I love channels 135 through 130 or so. Yes, I watch NHK (Japanese network) news and shows, which are in English. I get 127, National Geographic. YES, It's ridiculously expensive and Cox is an abusive monopoly!

I pulled the plug on Cox TV too - I only watched about 5 stations - why pay for all of the others? The City should get involved in re-organizing Cox's TV service since it is a monopoly here - offer plans for subscribers to choose what stations they want to view and price it accordingly. As far as other internet providers, from what I have gleaned on edhat, Cox internet service is hard to beat, at least speed-wise, but I could be wrong about that.

I'm very frustrated with Cox for our internet, too. We dropped the TV part of it long ago and are so happy we did. But now they upped our rates from about $69 to $99! Apparently we were on a "special rate" for 2 years and the end of that coincided with their rate increase. I was really close to switching to another provider so the guy on the phone found a way to bring it back down a bit. I'm still tempted to switch. Any suggestions from Edhatters for good internet providers?

I'm very liberal and find MSN to often be too biased. I seek information from many sources -
mostly newspapers and magazines, because they have to take time to think. Thanks for your comment.
Gosh, I watched Donahue in the 70's?? Loved him.

I'm very liberal and find MSN to often be too biased. I seek information from many sources -
mostly newspapers and magazines, because they have to take time to think. Thanks for your comment.
Gosh, I watched Donahue in the 70's?? Loved him.

Thank you for remembering what happened, and why, to one of the great intelligent voices on television, Phil Donahue. And I'll add that the war he opposed is still going on, with incalculably horrible results. No MSNBC isn't as bad as FoxNews, isn't as openly fact-free, but it's clear at this point that they allow a certain type of neoliberal bias because it's good for ratings. Only if the "liberals" stay within the corporate state bounds, though; I only watched a couple of times before turning away in disgust, but to me Maddow's attacks on Sanders weren't very distinguishable from the sort of thing they dish out on Faux.

False equivalence. Fox is explicitly an arm of the GOP ... that's what Roger Ailes built it for. Rupert Murdoch directs its political slant. MSNBC is a corporation dominated by rich Republicans, which allows some liberal voices because they figured out that it's good for their profit margin ... but they cancelled Phil Donahue for opposing the Iraq war.

They do it because they can and they know most will pay extra to hear what they want so MSNBC helped this to increase there profit ,Do not think there was a plan, They probably charge for fox news in those areas were it is popular , Wake up

Yes, this change has hit several lower tier packages. The worst thing about it is that FOX News Channel (propaganda, biased reporting, least credible of all cable news) is still being provided. This means that lower income Santa Barbarans or those who can only afford the basic cable packages will not have access to complete or credible news, analysis, and reporting. In fact, FOX is the channel that tilts farthest alt-right and actually harms lower income communities.
It is my sincere hope that our new Mayor, Cathy Murrillo and our City Council members will hold COX accountable for diminishing lower income Santa Barbarans from having full access to credible news sources as a basic cable viewing service. I encourage Edhatters and other Santa Barbarans to contact our officials because we desperately need (and deserve) to have different cable and high speed internet providers in our fair City.

While I generally agree with your philosophy, in the real world of corporate behavior today it is unrealistic to think that "liberal" ideology (that is, the lower case liberal) can overcome the onslaught of paid and propagandized media. On top of this we know that huge money is being spent to do the same to "social media" distributors with even less accountability. Ensuring fair distribution of alternate voices is a legitimate governmental purpose.

While I generally agree with your philosophy, in the real world of corporate behavior today it is unrealistic to think that "liberal" ideology (that is, the lower case liberal) can overcome the onslaught of paid and propagandized media. On top of this we know that huge money is being spent to do the same to "social media" distributors with even less accountability. Ensuring fair distribution of alternate voices is a legitimate governmental purpose.

While I agree with your assessment of Fox Shmooze I don't see how you can hold local politicians to task for ensuring a business product line and its price lists. That is the kind of authoritarianism that Fox has been peddling for years.